From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 7 16:40:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EC616A4CE for ; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:40:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C00B43D2D for ; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:40:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.0.201] ([192.168.0.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i77GdeDD015155; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 10:39:40 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <41150570.9020603@samsco.org> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 10:38:08 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040801 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: andrew.lankford@verizon.net References: <20040807155603.UPDJ6722.out002.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <20040807155603.UPDJ6722.out002.verizon.net@outgoing.verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: amd64/67745: boot fails on compaq presario r3000z X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:40:21 -0000 Andrew Lankford wrote: >>I'd like to get this fixed for 5.3, > > > Sweet! > > >>but I also don't feel comfortable >>with completely turning off the keyboard and aux port tests. > > > For what it's worth, I don't think the second part of that > patch (the aux port test) is needed anymore (at least by > presario 3000 users). > > >>Can someone experiment to see if both test_kbd_port() and test_aux_port() >>need to be disabled? > > > I've got a little free time on my hands, but I'm not > optimistic about my chances of being able to boot without > the patch. Might it perchance help matters if I tried > refreshing the boot0 and boot1 images? > I don't know if the boot loaders will affect anything here, unless I'm mis-understanding the problem. Could you try a series of tests where you completely remove the patch, but also selectively remove the calls to test_kbd_port() for atkbd.c and see which instance is causing the problem? Scott